Headline News Around the World
- New Remnant E-BOOK: The Mosque of Notre Dame Posted on: Monday, January 23, 2017
- A NEW BOOK BY MSGR. FENTON: One of America's Greatest Theologians Posted on: Sunday, January 22, 2017
- Pro-Abortion Advocate Paul Ehrlich to Speak at Vatican Conference Posted on: Saturday, January 14, 2017
- Edward Peters Nails It: What About Canon 915? Posted on: Wednesday, January 11, 2017
Christopher A. Ferrara
Fawning over Fidel, Carping over Donald
The Pope Who Cannot Stop Talking really must. At age 80, his rambling, semi-coherent replies to leading questions from reporters are routinely dropped like bunker-busters by the mediatic bombardiers of the New World Order that Bergoglio serves so well.
This time, in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Pais (the newspaper’s own English translation is here) the endlessly loquacious man from Argentina, with a little coaxing, obligingly likened the duly elected Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. This is the same Pope who fawned over Fidel Castro, a communist dictator who (together with his murderous brother) seized and maintained power by force for over half a century before his death, committing war crimes and genocide against Catholics who resisted his tyranny or attempted to escape the island prison he created.
Bishops of Malta Say Public Adulterers Can Receive Holy Communion
Introduction: the Maltese Debacle
Citing Amoris Laetitia (AL) repeatedly as their sole authority, the bishops of once Catholic Malta now declare in their just-published “Guidelines for the Implementation of Chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia” that the new pseudo-doctrine of “discernment” permits a Catholic to “discern” that he can receive Holy Communion without ceasing adulterous sexual relations, and that he must be allowed to do so:
URGENTLY IMPORTANT HIGH PRIORITY BREAKING NEWS
Special to the Remnant
In retaliation for alleged hacking of the email of the Democratic National Committee and its Chairman, John Podesta, President Obama has announced the explusion of 35 Russian diplomats and the closure of two Russian diplomatic compounds (in New York and Maryland).
“Never again must Russian hackers be allowed to reveal the truth about the machinations of my party,” said Obama in his statement on the sanctions. “This interference in our corrupt political process is intolerable.”
Russia has denied any involvement in the hacking, and Julian Assange, the head of WikiLeaks, has insisted that the Russian government was not the source of the emails WikiLeaks released to the public. While the Obama administration has yet to release any evidence of Russian involvement, intelligence sources in the intelligence community have reached a consensus that Russia was behind the hacking based on evidence that cannot be published because it is Top Secret evidence that no one is allowed to see—even in a closed Congressional briefing the intelligence community has declined to provide. “Even those who found this evidence are not allowed to see it. That’s how Top Secret it is,” said Ben Nascosto, a CIA spokesman.
Obama has promised, however, that his administration will release a review of the consensus by the intelligence sources in the intelligence community just in time to cast a cloud over the inauguration of President Trump, who “would not have been elected if Russia had not embarrassed Hillary,” said a DNC source involved in the intelligence review. The review will not include the Top Secret evidence because it will still be Top Secret.
“We certainly can’t let Russia know why there is a consensus that Russia is behind the hacking, because then the Russians would know how we arrive at consensuses, which itself is a Top Secret process,” said Nascosto. “The people who are demanding to see evidence don’t understand how the intelligence community works. The primary evidence for an intelligence community consensus is the consensus. We would not have reached a consensus that Russia was behind this if we were not convinced that it must have been Russia. That conviction led to the consensus that is the basis for our consensus.”
“It is simply outrageous that Trump does not take the consensus of the intelligence community seriously,” said John Podesta in comments on the sanctions. “I find it alarming that the man about to be sworn in as President does not have implicit faith in the trustworthiness of the CIA in particular—as if that revered intelligence agency would spread disinformation or put out a hit on people like Putin does. How can anyone govern this country if he does not trust the CIA?”
Commenting on the sanctions during a press conference in Moscow, Vladimir Putin remarked: “This is a joke, right? No, really? 35 of our people expelled? For crying out loud, Russia was not involved! I told that clown Obama when I last met him and he told me to ‘cut it out.’ Cut what out? How about some evidence? I can’t wait until Trump is inaugurated and I can start dealing with an adult. Give me a break.”
When asked why there had been no sanctions for previous alleged Russian hacking involving classified information in federal agency data banks, compromising national security, Obama replied: “That was nothing personal, just espionage. We do it to them, they do it to us. But here we’re talking about Hillary and her turn to be President. If not for Russian interference, my legacy of abortion, contraception, sodomy, transgender bathrooms, massive illegal immigration, spreading Islamic terror and unaffordable health care would have remained intact with her. This outrageous interference in the folly of the democratic process cannot go unpunished. Russia must pay and the American people must know that Russia stole this election for Trump, according to the consensus of the intelligence community, no matter how many electoral votes he supposedly won. And, as we know, Hillary won the popular vote in Los Angeles and New York. So there’s that.”
In view of Russia’s hacking of the election, actor Martin Sheen has formed a coalition of celebrities and Democratic Party strategists in another last-ditch attempt to prevent Trump from taking power. The Mahogany Box Coalition aims to prevent Congress from counting the electoral votes that were placed in the traditional mahogany boxes by the electoral colleges that voted in each state before being sent to Washington for the count before a joint session of Congress on January 6.
“Who says they have to open those damn boxes?” Sheen asked. “If those boxes stay shut, no electoral votes can be counted and Trump will not be President. It’s that simple. The members of Congress have a duty under the Constitution not to open those boxes. The Founders wisely envisioned those boxes as the last defense against a dangerous homophobic maniac becoming president and launching all of our nuclear missiles at the first country that annoys him.”
A Keep the Boxes Shut petition online has already garnered 10 million signatures from at least 5,000 people.
You are spiritually sick, malicious, and tools of the devil.
It’s Christmastime again. That means it’s time for the Pope who says “But never judge. Never” to issue his annual judgments on the character defects and spiritual illnesses of members of the Roman Curia who are resisting his “reforms.”
In his annual “Christmas Greetings” (more like “Christmas Condemnations”), Francis reminds the Curia that he has already twice (2014 and 2015) diagnosed their “diseases” of soul and prescribed “a catalogue of virtues [emphasis in original] necessary for curial officials and all those who wish their consecration or service to the Church to become more fruitful.” This year, Francis heaps more insults on the mountain of crude opprobrium with which he has attempted to bury any opposition to whatever he would like to do under the rubric of the Protestant slogan semper reformanda (falsely attributed to Saint Augustine, who said nothing of a Church that must constantly reform itself as opposed to maintaining or restoring what has been handed down).
The title of this post is about the last thing Remnant readers might expect from me, given my paper trail, which includes a 600-page study of the philosophy, theology, hagiography and mythology involved in the destructive rise and ever-accelerating fall of what the moderns call Liberty.
Then again, I am also on record praising the Constitution as a masterpiece of technical legal drafting whose problem consists not so much in what it provides as in what it omits: a foundation for the rights it asserts and the powers it purports to delegate and limit, that foundation being none other than God and His Law. It was not I but the Protestant President of Yale University, Timothy Dwight, who said this of the Constitution during the national chastisement of the War of 1812:
We formed our Constitution without any acknowledgement of God; without any recognition of His mercies to us, as a people, of His government, or even of His existence. The Convention, by which it was formed, never asked even once, His direction, or His blessing, upon their labours. Thus we commenced our national existence under the present system, without God.
It’s Advent, the sacred season of Our Lord’s first coming. And what better time for a perpetually prattling Pope to disgust the whole Catholic world with what he seems to think is a clever analogy between irresponsible journalism and coprophilia, the perverse erotic attraction to human feces, and coprophagia, the perverse desire to eat feces.
For the second time since 2013 (when he was still Cardinal Bergoglio), Francis has uttered this scatological atrocity, this time in meandering remarks to an obscure Belgian magazine published on the Vatican website:
And then, I believe that the media should be very clear, very transparent, and not fall prey – without offence, please – to the sickness of coprophilia, which is always wanting to communicate scandal, to communicate ugly things, even though they may be true. And since people have a tendency towards the sickness of coprophagia, it can do great harm.
Religión Confidencial has published a correction of its original interview text, which I quoted in Spanish. They got it wrong, as Mons. Vito was actually saying, according the Spanish daily, that "Pope Francis is not a Pope of other times in which those measures were used and that the Pope was not going to withdraw from them the Cardinalate dignity. The news is corrected, but we publish this rectification in case it was not enough.”
Nevertheless, there is no change of Mons. Vito’s statement that the Pope could do so, even though he would not. Nor is there any change to the rest of the statement. - Christopher Ferrara
For more than three years a Bergoglian mafia of handpicked soldiers in clerical garb and miters has been conducting the Capo di Tutti Capi’s relentless campaign to rub out the bimillenial teaching and discipline of the Church respecting divorced and “remarried” persons living in what even John Paul II’s often nebulous Catechism calls “a situation of permanent and public adultery.” The hit list includes the teaching of both of the Capo’s two immediate predecessors that “under no circumstances can their new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the sacraments is intrinsically impossible. The conscience of the individual is bound to this norm without exception.”
Determined to implement the Boss’s will and provoke internal schisms throughout the Church—what is a mortally sinful sacrilege in one diocese will now be viewed as “mercy” in an adjoining diocese—the antics of this mafia have reached farcical proportions in keeping with this endless farce of a papacy. In the wake of the four cardinals letter politely requesting to know, in essence, whether Francis intends to teach heresy and undermine divine and natural law, the head of the Roman Rota, Msgr. Pio Vito Pinto, has none-too-subtly threatened the four with loss of the cardinalate. As Don Vito put it during a conference in Spain:
As four cardinals publicly challenge Pope Francis to answer five dubia that reduce to the single question “Do you mean to preach heresy and subvert the entire moral order?”, Dr. Jeff Mirus has enunciated the latest “mainstream” position respecting a wayward Pope who can no longer be defended seriously by any believing Catholic: ignore him.
Mirus begins well enough by summarizing the grounds for legitimate, indeed morally obligatory, opposition to a Pope who seems intent on fulfilling his “dream” of “transforming everything” in the Church to suit an idiosyncratic “vision” that Antonio Socci has rightly dubbed “Bergoglianism.” Writes Mirus:
Mocks critics of Amoris. “Boiling with rage” at four cardinals.
Declares no “black and white” in “flow of life.” Ducks consistory meeting.
Now that four prominent cardinals have publicly queried Francis on whether, in promulgating Amoris Laetitia, he intends to contradict “sacred Scripture… the Tradition of the Church, [and] the existence of absolute moral norms,” Catholics who are committed to orthodoxy would appear to have two alternatives in their approach to this wayward Pope. The first alternative is a retreat into sheer papal positivism, declaring (as Jeff Mirus does) that “we have no certain way of knowing what is part of Tradition (big “T”) and what is only human tradition (small “t”) apart from the Magisterium of the Church—that is, the teaching authority of the Pope.”
In other words, Tradition is whatever the Pope says it is rather than an objectively knowable deposit of the Faith, including defined dogmas. As that opinion is obviously absurd, the second alternative looms: Francis must be a heretic, an antipope or both because his teaching in Amoris does indeed suggest a contradiction of Scripture, Tradition and moral absolutes, thus prompting the cardinals’ unprecedented public intervention.
For the past three-and-a-half years we have witnessed the bizarre, completely unprecedented spectacle of a wayward Roman Pontiff engaged in clever maneuvering to impose upon the Church a disastrous fracturing of her bimillenial moral and Eucharistic discipline respecting the divorced and “remarried”—and, even worse, via Amoris Laetitia (especially Ch. 8, ¶¶ 300-305), a form of situation ethics that would institutionalize admission to the sacraments of all manner of people living habitually in situations that are mortally sinful.